Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.5.23 Board Correspondence - FW_ Request for Intervention and Assistance on Proposed NAAQS for Particulate MatterFrom:Clerk of the Board To:BOS Cc:Hatcher, Casey; Nuzum, Danielle Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Request for Intervention and Assistance on Proposed NAAQS for Particulate Matter Date:Thursday, January 5, 2023 1:47:45 PM Please see Board Correspondence below. Shaina Paulsen Associate Clerk of The Board Butte County Administration 25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965 T: 530.552.3304 | F: 530.538.7120 From: Moak, Peggy <pmoak@buttecounty.net> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 12:47 PM To: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov Cc: Daneluk, Paula <PDaneluk@buttecounty.net>; Loeser, Kamie <KLoeser@buttecounty.net>; Pack, Joshua <jpack@buttecounty.net>; Nuzum, Danielle <DNuzum@buttecounty.net>; Teeter, Doug <DTeeter@buttecounty.net>; Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net> Subject: Request for Intervention and Assistance on Proposed NAAQS for Particulate Matter Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget 725 17th St. NW Washington, DC 20503 email: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov Re: OIRA Review of the NAAQS for Particulate Matter (RIN: 2060-AV52) Dear Sir or Madam, The Butte County Federal/State Land Use Coordinating Committee (Committee) is asking for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ assistance regarding a critical issue raised by the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter (“PM2.5”). The Committee is charged with advising the Board of Supervisors on current public lands management issues, and functions under the Brown Act for public meetings. We realize that the official comment period may have elapsed; however, we are hopeful that you will understand the importance of the following information and assist in seeing through revisions as requested. These revisions, if implemented as proposed, would severely impede the use of prescribed fire, cultural burning, and wildfire managed for resource benefit (collectively, “beneficial fire”) in fire-dependent ecosystems. However, scientists, land managers, and public health experts agree that a significant increase in the use of beneficial fire is a critical tool in our collective efforts to reduce exposure to PM2.5, specifically from wildfire smoke. We urge OIRA to ensure that EPA’s upcoming rulemaking is framed broadly enough to allow consideration of regulatory changes that would ensure a reduction in the PM2.5 NAAQS does not hobble efforts to restore beneficial fire to fire-dependent ecosystems. We understand that EPA is considering a reduction in the primary annual average PM2.5 NAAQS from 12 ug/m3 to between 8 ug/m3 and 10 ug/m.3 If such a standard is implemented without consideration for beneficial fire, it would significantly limit the number of burn windows available to public, private, and tribal land managers to implement beneficial fire across the United States. Preliminary research indicates that some areas would see a reduction in available burn days of 70-80 percent, at a time when relevant experts agree that more burn days are needed to implement beneficial fire at a meaningful pace and scale. A key purpose of OIRA review is to ensure that EPA’s proposed rule does not conflict with the policies or actions taken or planned by another agency or the Biden Administration. However, adoption of the lower PM2.5 NAAQS without consideration for beneficial fire would result in a significant conflict. For example, the U.S. Forest Service recently issued its Wildfire Crisis Strategy[1], which calls for “dramatically increasing fuels and forest health treatments [including beneficial fire] by up to four times current treatment levels in the West.” The Department of the Interior likewise articulated the need to increase the pace and scale of priority fuel management treatments, including beneficial fire.[2] The Biden Administration has assembled the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission to develop strategies to better prevent and manage wildfires, including through expanded beneficial fire use.[3] All of these targets are supported by significantly increased funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and bipartisan Infrastructure and Jobs Act for beneficial fire activities. Federal agencies, however, will not be able to spend these dollars and implement their planned actions if the PM2.5 NAAQS is modified without consideration for beneficial fire. We understand that the EPA may believe that PM2.5 emissions from beneficial fire can be adequately addressed under the Exceptional Events Rule. Indeed, EPA engaged in rulemaking in 2016 that codified the conditions under which prescribed fires could qualify as exceptional events.[4] However, the regulatory process developed in the 2016 rulemaking is not sufficient to enable the amount of beneficial fire experts say is necessary to reduce wildfire emissions. Exceptional Events filings are technically demanding and expensive. As such, local air regulators simply declare burn bans or deny smoke management permit requests on days where beneficial fire smoke may lead to NAAQS exceedances, rather than agree to pursue an arduous Exceptional Events filing. Indeed, we are not aware of any Exceptional Events filings for prescribed fires since the rule was promulgated. If the EPA does reduce the PM2.5 NAAQS, additional regulatory solutions—either within the Exceptional Events rule or elsewhere in the CAA regulations—are necessary to ensure that land owners and managers can implement needed beneficial fire projects. We urge OIRA to ensure that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is sufficiently expansive to allow development of these solutions in tandem with any revised PM2.5 NAAQS. We are strongly supportive of the EPA’s intent to reduce PM2.5 emissions. Additional regulation of stationary sources, tailpipe emissions, and similar anthropogenic sources are clearly warranted to protect public health. However, as the EPA acknowledges, the single biggest threat to public health from PM2.5 emissions is wildfire smoke, which is currently unregulated.[5] If we are serious about protecting public health, EPA’s regulations must enable significantly greater use of beneficial fire, rather than continuing to treat it like other forms of pollution. Modifying the PM2.5 NAAQS without addressing the burden of such regulation on beneficial fire use will nearly eliminate our best tool to tackle wildfire emissions. Thank you for your time and consideration of this very important matter. Yours truly, Peggy MoakSpecial Projects Butte County Federal/State Land Use Coordinating Committee Butte County Forest Advisory Committee 25 County Center Drive, Suite 213, Oroville, CA 95965 M: 530.370.2933 pmoak@buttecounty.net Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Pinterest [1] Confronting the Wildfire Crisis: A Strategy for Protecting Communities and ImprovingResilience in America’s Forests (January 2022), available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/wildfire-crisis. [2] U.S. Department of the Interior, Wildfire Risk Five-Year Monitoring, Maintenance andTreatment Plan (April 2022), available at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/bil-5-year-wildfire-risk-mmt-plan.04.2022.owf_.final_.pdf. [3] See https://www.usda.gov/topics/disaster-resource-center/wildland-fire/commission. [4] See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/documents/exceptional_events_rule_revisions_2060-as02_final.pdf. [5] See Figure 2-2, Final Policy Assessment for the Reconsideration of the PM NAAQS (May 2022).